Posted on: 23 Jul 2017
Dr. Nikhil asked: Padanamaskarams Swamiji,
I would like to submit the following questions related to ananda at Your divine feet. Your servant, Nikhil
1) Could You please explain the terms lokānanda, rasānanda and brahmānanda in the three contexts of unimaginable God, the human incarnation and the ordinary human being?
[In the case of God (Brahman), He is said to be Bliss or Ānanda (ānando brahmeti—Veda). God is also said to be entertainment or Rasa (raso vai saḥ—Veda). The purpose of creation is also said to be rasa or entertainment (ekākī na ramate…aicchat—Veda). Logically, it appears that worldly joy or sensual joy (lokānanda), refined entertainment (rasānanda) and God’s inherent bliss (brahmānanda) should be in increasing order of superiority. However, God, who inherently possessed brahmānanda in the beginning, was bored. He created the universe for the purpose of entertainment (rasa). This seems to indicate that rasānanda must be superior to brahmānanda. Lokānanda seems to be the lowest in any case. Could You please systematically explain each term and clarify the confusion? Also, could You please explain the same in the three cases of unimaginable God, the human incarnation and the ordinary human being?]
Swami replied: The word ‘ananda’ means the happiness that is continuous without any break (aasamantaat nandati iti). There are two aspects of happiness: 1) The quantitative value and 2) The continuity without any break. If you take the quantitative aspect, it depends upon the power of resistance of heart to withstand the happiness, which is a forcible emotion. A poor man on hearing that he got lottery of Rs 1 crore died immediately by heart attack due to the inability of heart to withstand the force of happiness. Be it human being or human incarnation (human being-component only), there is a limit of withstanding power of heart towards the force (quantity) of happiness. Hence, much variation of happiness in variation of quantitative aspect is not possible in human beings, be it a normal human being or human incarnation. Of course, in the case of souls existing in energetic bodies, the force of resistance is certainly far higher than materialized human beings. When the Veda said about the order of happiness in quantitative measure, all the grades of happiness described above the range of human beings is concerned with energetic living beings only. The intensity of energy of the body may vary from one type of energetic souls to other type of energetic souls and hence, the quantitative variation of happiness can also correspondingly vary much. Regarding human beings, such variation is within a small range of limitation only. This small range is allowed because the poor man only died and perhaps any rich man may withstand the news of lottery. The human being-component in the human incarnation is also an ordinary human being having limited inherent capacity of withstanding force of happiness existing in that small range only. Due to the presence of God-component, the properties and capacities of human being-component will not be disturbed and hence, there is no question of large quantitative variation of the capacity of the human being-component. The superiority of happiness does not lie mainly in the quantitative aspect of happiness even though small variation is possible in the permitted range. The happiness on hearing the achievement of Rs 1000 in lottery may be lesser than Rs. 1 crore. But, the upper limit of the capacity of the heart to withstand the happiness is always one and the same in all the human beings including the human being-component of human incarnation.
Mainly, the superiority of happiness is certainly in the aspect of continuity of happiness without any break resulting in the attack of unhappiness or misery. The definition of the word ‘ananda’ also indicates about the continuity (aasamantaat) of happiness without any break. Such continuity of happiness can exist only when all the worldly life becomes entertainment only. You may receive happiness or unhappiness in the worldly life, the final result of both should be only entertainment or ultimate happiness. When you are able to be happy even on receiving misery, you are equal to God in this aspect of continuous entertainment. This is the monism of Shankara, which is not the total monism since the soul can’t create, control and destroy the creation as said in the Brahma Sutras (jagat vyaapaara varjyam…). While giving the gradation of happiness in quantitative aspect of various levels of energetic beings also, the second aspect of continuity is also involved in the scale. This means that the happiness of Bruhaspati is more than the happiness of Indra not only in quantitative aspect but also in the aspect of time of continuity (sa ekobruhaspateraanandah - Veda).
Boring is not breakage of happiness, but, a desire to have happiness in a different channel or variety. A King is bored in palace and hence goes for hunting. This boring is not absence of happiness or presence of any deficiency in the form of misery. It is only a desire of happiness in a different style. Instead of palace, forest is desired. Instead of people, animals are desired. The palace or people are not giving any misery to the King. A poor man living in hut feels misery since his residency is not a palace. Changing the palace to forest is not changing misery to happiness. In fact, palace is superior to forest and people are superior to animals. The main point here is not change from misery to happiness, but, change from a variety of happiness to other variety of happiness. In both, happiness is one and the same. Only the external atmosphere is changed, which is called as entertainment. In the case of God, all desires are fulfilled (aaptakaamsya… Veda, Naanavaaptamavaaptavyam… Gita). In such case, there is no place of misery even in boring. In the case of any soul including King all desires are not fulfilled and there is continuous existence of misery in any soul. This misery pervades the aspect of boring and boring may appear as misery for souls. The boring gets the nature of misery from already existing and closely associated misery like a cold iron rod associated with hot iron rod also becomes hot. But, in the case of God, due to absence of any misery, boring can never attain the nature of misery. King is taken as an example for God since he has relatively lesser misery than any other human being in his kingdom. An exact equal simile is impossible in the creation. This state of God is impossible for any soul and hence, boring becomes miserable for souls. Hence, we cannot think about boring of God in terms of our boring.
The truth of a concept shall be decided by logical analysis in the very first step. Without doing this, we can’t take scriptures (with possible infections of misinterpretations and insertions) and experience of majority (major subjectivity) and experience of minority (minor subjectivity) as authorities. In the case of experience of one moon in the sky, major subjectivity is the authority and minor subjectivity having experience of two moons is not authority. In the authenticity of vision of Sun, blind majority is not authority whereas minority having vision is authority. Majority or minority is not important. But, the quality of the subjectivity (blind or not) is important, which supports the conclusion of analysis. In the universal subjectivity regarding deep sleep, the crucial point is that the relative awareness or soul disappears totally and hence, there is no experience in the deep sleep. Had there been experience in deep sleep, it could have been recollected in the awaken state just like recollecting the experience of dream state. If the relative awareness is the absolute unimaginable awareness (God), certainly there will be experience in deep sleep that could have been recollected in the awaken state. God being the witness of the entire creation is certainly the witness of entire creation, but such God is not in every human body. Even the witness of inert human body in the deep sleep is not recollected in the awaken state, not to speak of the experience of witness of entire creation. The universal subjectivity is only the absence of any experience during the deep sleep, which proves that the soul is disappearing in deep sleep and re-appearing in the awaken state as said in the Gita (Athachainam…).
Hence, Brahmananda or bliss of God and rasaananda of God as spectator of creation or actor in the creation-drama respectively are one and the same in the aspect of happiness. God is entertained by seeing the creation (sakshi) and is further entertained by entering the creation as incarnation. In both these states also, happiness is one and the same in the aspect of continuity. The quantitative aspect of happiness of God as spectator may be infinite, which may be limited and finite in human incarnation from the point of limited capacity of medium. The human incarnation can also get the infinite capacity to withstand infinite happiness if the unimaginable God wishes so. The lokananda or manushananda of human beings has no possibility of getting such infinite capacity and also the happiness of any human being has no continuity. The basic reason is that this entire creation is non-existent before God whereas it is equally existent before any soul. The human being is entertained by the happy scenes and also by tragic scenes of cinema because before him, the cinema is non-existent. This does not mean that the soul cannot achieve the state of entertainment with equally existing items. But, the soul is receiving entertainment from both sweet and hot dishes in the meals, which are equally existent. This entertainment may not be as strong as the entertainment in seeing the unreal cinema. Hence, monism of Shankara is possible to some extent with equally existing objects also by putting effort in the case of a human being.
2) If the inherent nature of an individual is not bliss, why does one always seek happiness?
[Proponents of Advaita claim that bliss (blissful Brahman) is our inherent nature and that due to ignorance (avidyā) we are (notionally) separated from it as the jīva. When we tend to seek happiness in worldly objects through our senses, it is actually a misguided effort, owing to our ignorance, to revert to our original nature of bliss. If You disagree with the idea that our inherent nature is the blissful Brahman, how do You explain the constant drive towards happiness that is present in all living beings and especially in humans?]
Swami replied: Bliss is not inherent nature of awareness. If it is inherent nature of awareness or soul, there is no need of any drive for the attainment of the inherent bliss that is already existing with itself. A poor man having no money only runs after money. A rich man having plenty of money does not run after money. Bliss is mainly the happiness that stays continuously without any break. The aspect of continuity is more important than the aspect of quantity. The happiness of a human being is breaking in this worldly life since it is not running towards God. It is always running towards the world, the nature of which is the rotating cycle of alternative blades of happiness and misery as arranged by God for souls. Happiness or bliss and misery are related to awareness only. Hence, awareness alone can enjoy happiness or bliss. God is neither awareness nor bliss. God is having awareness or bliss even though He is not this relative awareness, which is generated after the creation of food only (annaat purushah - Veda). His unimaginable and absolute awareness means His capacity to know everything and not that He is the relative awareness generated by inert energy in the nervous system. The original item said as Atman (aatmana aakaashah) even before the creation of space is the unimaginable God indicated through a medium and hence called as Atman. The unimaginable God present in the medium or incarnation existed even before the creation of space or His medium. A young son is carrying on his old father on his back. Somebody told him that this father generated the young son, which means that this father existed even before the creation of this son. You should take the father alone present on the back of the son before the creation of son and not the father along with the son! The unimaginable God in the medium should be taken without the medium while referring Him before the creation.
3) Isn’t the experience of the existence of Brahman in the wakeful state, affected by the defect of subjectivity?
[The scriptures suggest that the ultimate Brahman is revealed (known) through direct experience (yat sākṣāt aparokṣāt brahma—Veda). However, the experience that exists in the wakeful and dream states has a defect. It is subjective. It varies from person to person. Even if people are seeing the same object in the wakeful state, their experience is likely to be different. In fact, no one can say for sure what the other person is experiencing. To give a crude example, one person may see that a flower is pink in color. Another person, throughout his life, might have always perceived pink as red. But since everyone calls that particular color as pink, he too calls that color as pink. By the same logic, he might have always perceived red as some other color. No one can really know what his eyes see. Similarly, all wakeful experiences (or dream experiences) have this defect of subjectivity and cannot be admitted as authorities (pramaṇās) for knowing Brahman. Brahman should be known only through a universal experience.
Proponents of Advaita claim that such a universal experience is not possible in the dream or wakeful states but is possible only in the state of deep sleep. That singular experience in the state of deep sleep, is the experience of one’s inherent bliss and that of complete ignorance of any gross or subtle objects or viśayās (sukham aham aswāpsaṁ; na kiñcit aveditam). This is a universally valid experience. It is free of the individual subjectivity that is inevitable in all wakeful and dream experiences. Based on this universal experience, one infers the existence of a universal witness even in deep sleep. That witness is our inherent nature, which is our Atman or Brahman. Hence, Brahman is said to be evident only in deep sleep (suṣuptyaika siddhaḥ—Shankara) in the case of all human beings. In the realized soul, the covering of the fundamental ignorance (avidyā) has been permanently removed by self-knowledge (Ātma Jñāna). He experiences His inherent nature, the Brahman in all states.
Contrary to the above view, You claim that the ultimate Brahman is revealed through wakeful experience. You claim that experiencing an extraordinary specialty in the knowledge preached (prajñānaṁ brahma—Veda) by a particular ‘Person’, one can infer that the ultimate Brahman exists in that Person, i.e. that Person is a human incarnation of God. You have further clarified that the special, extraordinary preaching must also be true (satyam jñānam—Veda) and it must give bliss (ānando brahmeti—Veda) and it must produce love (devotion) (raso vai saḥ—Veda) for the incarnation. Isn’t Your view affected by the defect of subjectivity?
In fact, this defect of subjectivity is very real. We commonly see so many people following fake godmen, thinking that they are incarnations of God. The followers have experienced some specialty in the preaching, statements (prajñānam)and predictions of those godmen. The followers have also experienced that those statements or predictions have also come true (satyam). The followers have also experienced a lot of bliss (ānanda), especially when their desires were fulfilled by the godmen or when the predictions came true. They indeed have lot of love (devotion) (rasa) for the fake godmen. Yet often, those godmen turn out to be fake later. So, the criteria and procedure for identifying a genuine human incarnation of God, given by You is neither universally valid nor reliable due to the defect of subjectivity. In the light of this defect, could You kindly revisit this crucial point.]
Swami replied: None shall say that all human incarnations are fraud since in this time 99% are fraud. If you say that every incarnation is false, Datta and Krishna must be false. Even in the end of this Kali age (when fraudness is in climax), one human incarnation exists by the name Kalki. When the concept of human incarnation can’t be eradicated due to the omnipotence of God and due to sincere desire of some devotees, by showing universal subjectivity, you can’t do away with the fundamental concept of incarnation. There will be no time of single generation in this creation when a genuine single human incarnation is also absent. You can filter the false human incarnations giving false preaching through the filter of sharp analysis. The process of filtration is not affected by the percentage of insoluble impurity in a solution. Since the percentage of impurity is more, you can’t say that filtration is impossible. Hence, universal majority is not a hurdle for filtration.
You have projected the universal subjectivity as the authority for the ultimate truth. All the people are blind and all will fall in the well one after the other based on this universal subjectivity (andhenaiva… Veda). In fact, one out of millions can only understand (see) the existence of unimaginable God as said by the Veda (Kaschit dheerah…) and the Gita (Kaschit maam…). Philosophy becomes the subject of politics if support of majority is stressed!
You have mentioned the example of experience in deep sleep as universal subjectivity to be the base of God. When God is unimaginable as said by the Veda and the Gita, the word ‘subjectivity’ fails because God is beyond imagination and experience. Only the existence of unimaginable God is experienced (Asteetyeva - Veda). This is not the experience of God or inherent nature of God. Only inference of existence of unimaginable God through unimaginable events gives the inductive (inference) experience of the existence of unimaginable God. Neither awareness nor bliss (which is an associated nature of awareness like misery) is the inherent nature (swarupa lakshanam) of unimaginable God. Even the creation of this creation is an associated nature (tatastha lakshanam) of God. The Brahma Sutras started saying that something about God is going to be discussed and the nature of God revealed immediately was only associated nature (janmaadyasya…). 90% of My spiritual knowledge is only to stress on this main point that the non-mediated original God is unimaginable and there is no point of saying about experiencing His inherent nature. If you identify the inherent nature, God becomes imaginable. The nature of the medium with which God got identified by complete merge is considered as the inherent nature of God and in this way, you can say that awareness and bliss are inherent natures of (mediated) God.
You said that experience in deep sleep is universal subjectivity that can stand as an authority for grasping the inherent nature of God, which is awareness and bliss. In the deep sleep, the experience is totally absent due to existence of total ignorance. Did you feel in the deep sleep itself that you are sleeping with happiness? Answer this one question keeping your hand on your heart. You are feeling or stating this only after awakening from the deep sleep. This is not the knowledge of perception. If it is so, you must have felt so during the deep sleep itself. When you are seeing a pot as witness, during the time of seeing itself, you are feeling that you are seeing the pot. Everybody will agree with Me and hence, My argument has equal universal subjectivity. After rising from deep sleep only, you are experiencing the happiness of long rest and from this, you are inferring the happy sleep in the past time. From the perception, inference comes out since after seeing the relationship between smoke and fire in the kitchen only, you are inferring fire on the mountain on seeing smoke from the hill. Similarly, on perceiving the happiness after deep sleep, you are inferring the unperceived happiness during deep sleep. In fact, during deep sleep, only rest was there and not happiness. The happiness of rest is perceived only after the deep sleep, which is rubbed on the rest during the past deep sleep!
When Shankara told that unimaginable God exists during the deep sleep in which total ignorance alone existed, it only means that the unimaginable God can’t be experienced directly. The total ignorance indicated by silence in the deep sleep is the correct commentary of the unimaginable God, which is also told by the same Shankara (maunavyakhyaa prakatita Parabrahma tattvam…). The total ignorance of unimaginable God is just similar to the total ignorance in deep sleep. The similarity is in ignorance and not in the object. The ignorance in deep sleep has no object. The ignorance about God is objective since God exists as object known by Himself and in this God Himself is the subject. The Veda says that the knower of Brahman is Brahman Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva bhavati). The correct interpretation is that Brahman alone knows Itself. The wrong interpretation is that the soul knowing Brahman becomes Brahman.
Follow sincerely the path of logical analysis only and don’t bother about the authority of majority of public. Such analysis shall coincide with the experience of scholars. Scholars may be in minority and simple majority can’t represent scholars. Aparoksha or direct perception of God refers to the human incarnation in which God is totally identified with a selected human being. Anubhava or experience of God can mean the experience by perception in the case of human incarnation or experience of existence by inference in the case of unimaginable God.
The similarity of the aspect of deep sleep and the aspect of God shall be clearly understood. In deep sleep, this body exists, but not experienced as object since the subject or awareness does not exist. When the awareness exists, this body becomes the object of awareness. In the case of non-mediated unimaginable God, God is not experienced as the object even though the subject or awareness or soul exists. God becomes the object only when God Himself becomes the subject. The similarity in both situations is about the total ignorance of the object, which is temporary in the case of deep sleep and permanent in the case of God for the soul standing as subject.
The unimaginable God possessing the first energetic incarnation called as Datta possessed Me and is speaking all this spiritual knowledge with full clarification through vast elaboration. This is the unique opportunity of humanity since this revelation of spiritual knowledge leaves no space for any misinterpretation. I know very well that you are projecting these doubts again and again for the sake of benefit of humanity only. This human incarnation called as Datta Swami is mainly for the clarification of all doubts in spiritual knowledge and this most rarest opportunity shall be used by all. When you are representing all others, all others are also answered.
Shri Karthik asked:
[Our scriptures talk of different kinds of worlds inhabited by different kinds of beings. You have told us how this world is a subset of 4 subdivisions of the Bhu loka. Apart from this karma loka, souls in the other 3 worlds in the Bhu loka only reap the fruits of their deeds. Now there are other higher worlds apart from the Bhu loka, such as the Hiranya loka, Siddha loka, etc. My question is - do beings in these kind of worlds have free will and the opportunity to progress spiritually? Or do they have to come back to this world, namely the karma loka just like a soul in swarga loka or heaven comes back to this world after a certain period of time.
The story of Bhishma for example is an interesting one. Prior to his birth on Bhu loka, he was one of the ashtavasus. For all the ashtavasus, incarnating on this world was considered to be a dreadful thing; they were repulsed by the idea of a human birth just as a human would be repulsed by the prospective birth of an animal. Previously, You have also told us that a world is considered to be higher or lower based on the nearness of its inhabitants towards God. You have also told us that a true spiritual aspirant should aspire for fruit neither in this world or the next. However, I still have a doubt about the right attitude a spiritual aspirant should have in the context of attaining the birth of beings in these higher worlds. Please clarify Swami.]
Swami replied: It is true that the upper worlds are only for the enjoyment of fruits of deeds done in this martya loka or karma loka, which is the lowest subdivision of Bhuloka. Above this karma loka, preta, naraka and pitru lokas exist as the upper sub-divisions of this Bhuloka. Free will to do any action is possible only in this martya loka or karma loka. In the upper worlds also, God in the form of energetic incarnations gives spiritual preaching and the spiritual knowledge attained by such preaching enters the subconscious state (samskara or vasana) of the soul. Based on the attitudes of subconscious state, deeds are done in this karma loka only. The teaching of the subject is done in the entire academic year. Examination is only for three hours in each subject in the end of the year. This karma loka is the place of examination. The speciality is that the teaching continues even in the examination hall! We can consider this examination as a practical examination in laboratory before which teaching the procedure of experiment in the laboratory itself is not wrong. The examination is in doing the practical (deeds) and not in answering the question paper in theory. Just like any student fears for the examination, every soul fears to enter this karma loka. Sitting in the class and hearing the lecture happily is desired by everybody. There is no examination in the upper worlds but there is enjoyment of good fruits and bad fruits in these upper worlds. There is no need of free will in the upper worlds since doing deeds as examination does not exist. But, free will to assimilate the teaching or to reject it exists in the upper worlds. In the classroom, the student has freedom to try to understand the lecture or not to grasp anything even if the lecture is heard. The other seven souls (vasus) feared for the examination and hence refused to take birth in this martya loka. Due to the fear of examination, one may be reluctant towards karma loka, which need not be misunderstood in the sense that karma loka is inferior to the upper worlds. This karma loka is between the upper and lower worlds containing partial inferiority and partial superiority. The fear is not mainly for the inferiority in the scale, but due to the examination in the form of doing practical deeds.
2. Lord Rama beheaded Shambhuka, who was supposedly a shudra ascetic. Some people misunderstand this act as one based on casteism. Please tell us about the background of this act so that such misconceptions can be effectively dealt with.
Swami replied: This story is an insertion in Ramayana by the atheists, who were against the unity of Hindu religion. The Gita clearly says that caste is by qualities and practical deeds, which is never by birth. If a shudra (Shambhuka) by birth is beheaded by Rama for doing penance, what is your answer to the story in the Bhagavatam that a low-caste person (Sūta) by birth was made as the President of the sacrifice conducted by sages? Balarama under the ignorance of caste system by birth became furious with the pot-maker and Balarama was condemned by the sages for such ignorance. Both these stories contradict each other. Which story shall be taken as correct? The second story shall be correct since the policy of God is to consider the caste system not by birth, but by qualities and deeds. In the Gita, Krishna clearly told this policy (guna karma vibhaagashah). Rama is the previous incarnation of Krishna only. This means Rama did exactly opposite to the policy revealed by Krishna! The Bhagavatam and the Ramayanam cannot contradict each other because both are the stories of the same God in different human forms. Moreover, penance does not mean sitting in a place and chanting the name of God with closed eyes. It only means the spiritual debate of knowledge with other scholars as said by the Veda (taddhitapah). In the spiritual knowledge, the caste system by birth is condemned by Shankara (Brahmakshatraadyanapetam). Ramanuja also spoke the mantra to all castes climbing the wall of temple. Hence, sharp analysis should be always present with you like a torch light in ignorance-darkness.
3. Swami, I seek Your divine guidance on a sensitive topic that pertains mainly to people of the younger generation.
[My question is to do with watching pornography or films with explicitly sexual content. In today's society, we are constantly exposed to sexually arousing imagery through films, TV and the internet. For someone who lives in a modern city, it is nearly impossible to totally avoid this kind of content. Modern society in many aspects has become hyper sexualized.
Some are affected more easily by such sexually inciteful content than others depending upon their samskaras and external circumstances. You have many times told us that suppressing one's bad qualities is not the right way. Instead, one needs to divert these qualities to God. How is it possible for an ordinary soul to divert his/her lustful nature towards God and effectively prevent the loss of energy spent in lustful thoughts and actions?]
Swami replied: Anything diverted to God becomes good and anything diverted towards the world becomes bad. The good and bad lie in the direction and the goal. The same key in the same lock turned to one direction locks the doors and turned to opposite direction unlocks the doors. All things thought as bad by you become good if the direction is towards God. All things thought as good by you become bad if the direction is towards the world. Pure sandal paste submitted to the drainage becomes impure mud only. Impure material submitted to fire becomes sacred ash.
Sex is a noble and divine sacrifice done to extend this humanity (prajaatamtum... Veda). Eating food and drinking water are also noble sacrifices done to give energy to this body to do service to God. Hunger, thirst and sex are biological needs of the body, which should not be treated as bad or sinful. The Gita says that legally permitted sex is divine since it generates human beings of future generation to continue the entertainment of God (Dharmaaviruddhah kaamosmi). As you eat food while hungry or drink water while thirsty, a human being is entitled to have sex when such desire arises. As soon as youth starts after the childhood, marriage was done in the ancient times. Youth is the starting time for such desire. Marriage has nothing to do with the settlement of materialistic life. As soon as any soul is born on this earth by the will of God, the basic needs are already provided by God. Even the sinner is maintained by God. Even the atheist is maintained by God. A criminal jailed for anti-government activity is also given food and shelter in the jail by the government. If this faith exists, marriage has no link with settlement of materialistic life. Even after settlement of materialistic life, if marriage is done and issues are not born, how do you justify the link between marriage and materialistic life? The materialistic life becomes happy even if the basic needs are served. This concept is not maintained now. Now, the settlement of materialistic life means the fulfillment of endless desires. Hence, the marriage is delayed. In the childhood, education must be over and as soon as youth enters, married life shall start (shaishavebhyastavidyaanaam, yauvane vishayaishinaam). Now, the education is over when the youth is over and marriage is done in the beginning of old age! Justified earnings must serve the purpose of pacifying hunger, thirst, etc. Similarly, justified marriage must serve the need of pacification of sex. Since education continues in youth, the mind is neither absorbed in learning nor involved in the legal sex. All this is mainly due to the fundamental mistake of the very foundation-system of the society. The desire for sex in the body is the bell-ring for performing the marriage. One cannot concentrate on God while suffering with hunger and thirst. Similarly, one cannot concentrate on God while suffering with the desire of sex. Sex is very natural symptom like hunger and thirst of a biological system and these symptoms are parts of the plan of divine creation itself. Once these symptoms are pacified by the legal arrangements (like eating food, drinking water and marriage respectively), concentration on God is quite possible in any age of the body. Rama got married in the age of 12 years and Sita was in the age of 6 years. Of course, the conditions of health in that time of Treta age were quite different compared to the same of this time of Kali age. The basic point that is to be observed is that the marriage was performed as soon as the youth started. The desire for sex is the divine signal light given by God for performing the marriage. When legal arrangement is done in proper time, there is no need of desire for illegal arrangements. Even in the case of human incarnation, these biological needs continue because the human being-component is an ordinary biological system only like any other human being. Of course, if the God-component wishes, any biological need can be fully controlled. Such control becomes possible only on the wish of God-component and not by even the hectic effort of the human being-component! Resisted legal sex in the proper time only leads to all such disturbing factors. Either the need shall be controlled by God or shall be legally pacified by the human being in the need of the hour. Except these two ways, there is no third path to control these basic biological needs created by God Himself! This is the precise pin-point answer to your frank question.
4. Since satvam, rajas, and tamas always exist side by side, is it justified to say that even a rock has satvam in the least possible quantity, like say 0.00001 percent or lesser?
[A rock is made of matter (tamas), and matter is merely dynamic energy (rajas) that vibrates at a lower frequency. In the same sense, is satvam (which is a specific mode of energy/rajas) present in a rock at a miniscule, undetectable level?For example, let's say that 1 drop of honey is added to 100 litres of water. Unless one knows that this water contains the drop of honey, it'd be next to impossible to detect the drop with ordinary perception. In the same way, can we also say that even rocks (which are considered to be lifeless as per ordinary experience/anubhava) have an extremely tiny quantity of satvam/awareness that is negligible practically but nevertheless existing in reality?]
Swami replied: The stone can’t have awareness or sattvam in it due to absence of nervous system in it even though the inert energy exists. You can’t do the cutting work with the electricity straightly without the means of cutting machine. Inert energy is converted in the specific nervous system as a specific work called as awareness. All the three (sattvam or awareness, rajas or inert energy and tamas or inert matter) exist together in the case of living beings only because awareness always needs a container made of energy or matter (energy has trace of matter and matter has lot of inert energy and therefore both energy and matter always co-exist). For further details in elaborated manner, please refer to My answer given yesterday (22-07-2017) to the question of Shri G. Lakshman.